Which type of executive system would you think will be best for Nepal? 

• Direct election of executive Prime Minster with 15(or different) Minister’s Panel from the people and election of ceremonial president from the Electoral College. 

• Direct election of executive President from people and election of Prime minister from parliament. (French Model).

• Election of President and Prime Minister from parliament .(Like in Nepal)

• Just executive President no Prime Minister directly form people. (Somewhat like in US)

• President from the Electoral College and Prime Minister from the Parliament.(Like in India).

• Or any ? 

We have seen what parties can do, let's see what a leader can do (staying within the realm of multi-party democracy).
Option 2 for me.

 @kiddo, any reason for option 2 ?

Correction:

• Just executive President no Prime Minister directly form people. (Like in US)

It is not true. President is not directly elected from people in USA. It is from electoral college. Even though president gets more popular votes (individual votes from people) there is a chance that president  will lose the election.

Example: Al Gore got more vote than Bush in 2000 election. Nixon got more vote than Kennedy in 1960. But, Bush and Kennedy got more elctoral votes and won the presidency.

 @NepaliBhai, thanks for the correction. 

US System: Presidents are elected indirectly in the United States. A number of electors, collectively known as the Electoral College, officially select the president. On Election Day, voters in each of the states and the District of Columbia cast ballots for these electors. Each state is allocated a number of electors, equal to the size of its delegation in both Houses of Congress combined. Generally, the ticket that wins the most votes in a state wins all of that state's electoral votes and thus has its slate of electors chosen to vote in the Electoral College.

It
I thought I gave my reason on the very post.

nepalibhai is absolutely right 

Or any ? 

Since we are discussing all options, let us put this one on the table also. What are the pros and cons? 
Maybe we should do a SWOT analysis of both.

The question is not which system is better. The questions is: which system would be better for Nepalese at our current level of maturity, education, enlightenment, laws, media power, etc as a nation. 

In the long run, once Nepalese are mature, educated, enlightened with strong laws and a trust worthy media, American democracy would be a better model. 

But for now, Chinese-style Autocracy seems like it may be more important, just so we don't lose the nation. 

Chinese Autocracy versus American Democracy:
https://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/chinese-autocracy-vs-american-democracy

 Direct election of executive president as a head of everything is not appropriate for a poor and landlocked country like Nepal. As you all know the interference of India and the tradition of our leaders. To linger in power and run day to day business he has to please India and our leaders can do anything for their position and chair. So one person is super powerful he can do anything and autocracy may arise. And finally we have to fight like in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.

 And we know the dirty politics going on in our parliament system. Four prime ministers in four years, buying and selling of leaders. So we can not accept this any more. So if prime minister is elected like now from parliament this polluted politics remains forever.

 So one thing needed is direct election of head of the government but there should be someone who is above him so that he can not be autocratic. Executive prime minister should be elected directly from the people and ceremonial president should be elected from the Electoral College, which is best for our country.

 President will have some power and will be the head of army so prime minister can not be autocratic and the government will be stable and prime minister can think about the development. In this type of system foreigner will have less chance to play.

 I will say there should be fixed no of ministries like 15 ministers, one deputy PM and one PM. Before election of PM, each party should announce the name of ministers with their portfolio and public will vote for the whole panel. If PM wants to change ministers and appoint new minister later he should pass that from parliament. Parliament should have power to impeachment of President, PM and deputy PM (2/3 majority needed). It should be able to throw ministers with majority (1/2 majority) vote. But the parliament should be permanent which can not be dissolved by PM and President. 

 Don’t you think this will prevent us from dirty politics? 

One big thing is missing here.

Any Prime Minister or President should not have more than two terms in entire life. No matter how short each term is.
This is the MOST important. This will significantly reduce corruption.

 IT_Guy,

Do you consider Fidel Castro to be a success of failure? Do you consider Cuba to be a success or failure as a nation? Have you looked at Cuba's health care system? 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba

@babal khate, Cuba is a country with autocratic communist government. So we can not follow their way of administration because we want democracy and freedom. Health care system may be better over their which can be considered can be implemented in any type of government. But that may be another discussion. 

 @NepaliBhai, I agree with you and rewriting your line

Any Prime Minister or President should not have more than two terms in entire life. No matter how short each term is.